Have we actually been finding any terrorists? The only stories I've heard are ones involving entrapment. Is this just propaganda to convince people that privacy is bad or do they really think this will stop/catch someone?

Have we actually been finding any terrorists? The only stories I've heard are ones involving entrapment. Is this just propaganda to convince people that privacy is bad or do they really think this will stop/catch someone?

No idea. But that attached document is gold. Some favorites.

"What Should I Consider Suspicious?

People who are:"

Are overly concerned about privacy, attempts to shield the screen from view of
others

Always pay cash or use credit card(s) in different name(s)

Act nervous or suspicious behavior inconsistent with activities

And the best one.

It is important to remember that just because someone’s speech, actions, beliefs, appearance, or way of life is different; it does not mean that he or she is suspicious.

Yeah I read it earlier today and couldn't believe some of the things in there. The entire idea that someone would go to a public internet cafe to plan terrorist acts that they don't want people to see or know about it is hilarious.

I was wondering the same thing. It said they already had terrorist accusations on his file. Could mean they were monitoring him. Could mean that same person who accused him also reported his text to law enforcement.

Sounds to me that he was reported by at least one of the reciepients of the text, which is encouraged by those paranoia-inducing initiatives like "See Something, Say Something" campaigns.

Dear FBI, I have had contact with a person online who shows a dangerous disregard for the dangers America faces today. He has been trying to convince people not to do their civic duty of reporting suspicious activity, which is not only suspicious in and of itself, but is actually a way of directly attacking America's first line of defense if you don't think about it too much.

Now I'm not saying he's a terrorist, I'm just saying that if you were to accidentally pour water over his face 217 times you may hear something useful.

God Bless America, and you and the wonderful people like you that protect America from it's most dangerous enemies: it's own subversive citizens.

This is exactly the type of propaganda that makes the NDAA so dangerous. Some of the "extremist" views referred to in this article are shared by many Americans and this situation could become a very slippery slope if they start apprehending dissidents. Congress has something like an 8% approval rating, millions oppose the wars, millions are upset with the tax situation, etc. I guess the majority of America is "extreme".

There's a difference between not liking government in general and simply deciding that no law applies to you.

Killing two cops because they pulled you over or robbing a bank because you think the IRS stole money from you and you want it back definitely strikes me as "extreme". And dangerous. And just a bit crazy. OK, a lot crazy.

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.

April 1991: Dean Harvey Hicks launches a mortar attack on an I.R.S. service center in Fresno, California. He had earlier attempted twice to bomb a West Los Angeles I.R.S. office, once with a truck-borne fertilizer bomb. At the time of his arrest, he was plotting to bomb an FBI office in Los Angeles. He is convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

April 1992: An unidentified person fires shotgun blasts into the front window of an I.R.S. office in Hayward, California.

September 1993: An attempt to destroy an I.R.S. office in Santa Barbara, California, by pumping propane through a broken window, is foiled after an employee smells gas and notifies the police.

July 1995: Tax protester Charles Polk is arrested for plotting to blow up an IRS office in Austin, Texas. He later receives a 15-year sentence.

December 1995: Tax protester Joseph Bailie leaves a fertilizer bomb outside an I.R.S. office in Reno, Nevada. The bomb fails to explode, and Bailie is later convicted.

May 1997: Unknown arsonists set fire to a building housing I.R.S. offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

April 1999: Arsonists again attack a Colorado Springs I.R.S. office.

October 1999: Spokane, Washington, tax protester Richard Eldon Peters is arrested by F.B.I. agents on suspicion that he recruited two other men in 1998 to kill or retaliate against a witness who had testified against Peters at an earlier trial.

October 1999: Richard Van Hazel and Troy Coe are arrested in Rochester Hills, Michigan, charged with the attempted kidnapping and murder of an accountant who gave testimony in an Arizona case involving a chiropractor charged with income tax evasion. Van Hazel is a tax protester and white supremacist who himself was convicted in 1987 for mailing death threats to I.R.S. agents and an African American judge. He is later sentenced to life in prison.

January 2000: Nashville, Tennessee, tax protester Rodney Lynn Randolph receives a four-year prison sentence on weapons charges after a search of his home reveals an arsenal of weapons that included a hand grenade, bomb-making materials, automatic weapons parts, a .50-caliber antitank weapon and 200,000 rounds of ammunition.

April 1991: Dean Harvey Hicks launches a mortar attack on an I.R.S. service center in Fresno, California. He had earlier attempted twice to bomb a West Los Angeles I.R.S. office, once with a truck-borne fertilizer bomb. At the time of his arrest, he was plotting to bomb an FBI office in Los Angeles. He is convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

April 1992: An unidentified person fires shotgun blasts into the front window of an I.R.S. office in Hayward, California.

September 1993: An attempt to destroy an I.R.S. office in Santa Barbara, California, by pumping propane through a broken window, is foiled after an employee smells gas and notifies the police.

July 1995: Tax protester Charles Polk is arrested for plotting to blow up an IRS office in Austin, Texas. He later receives a 15-year sentence.

December 1995: Tax protester Joseph Bailie leaves a fertilizer bomb outside an I.R.S. office in Reno, Nevada. The bomb fails to explode, and Bailie is later convicted.

May 1997: Unknown arsonists set fire to a building housing I.R.S. offices in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

April 1999: Arsonists again attack a Colorado Springs I.R.S. office.

October 1999: Spokane, Washington, tax protester Richard Eldon Peters is arrested by F.B.I. agents on suspicion that he recruited two other men in 1998 to kill or retaliate against a witness who had testified against Peters at an earlier trial.

October 1999: Richard Van Hazel and Troy Coe are arrested in Rochester Hills, Michigan, charged with the attempted kidnapping and murder of an accountant who gave testimony in an Arizona case involving a chiropractor charged with income tax evasion. Van Hazel is a tax protester and white supremacist who himself was convicted in 1987 for mailing death threats to I.R.S. agents and an African American judge. He is later sentenced to life in prison.

January 2000: Nashville, Tennessee, tax protester Rodney Lynn Randolph receives a four-year prison sentence on weapons charges after a search of his home reveals an arsenal of weapons that included a hand grenade, bomb-making materials, automatic weapons parts, a .50-caliber antitank weapon and 200,000 rounds of ammunition.

Yes, but aside from THAT, do we have any evidence that tax protesters can be dangerous?

There's a difference between not liking government in general and simply deciding that no law applies to you.

Killing two cops because they pulled you over or robbing a bank because you think the IRS stole money from you and you want it back definitely strikes me as "extreme". And dangerous. And just a bit crazy. OK, a lot crazy.

I agree, those are certainly extreme actions and I'm sure we all agree that those aren't appropriate responses to opposing our government.

My problem is where do you draw the line with the label "extremist"; undoubtedly the label will be gradually altered to include a larger demographic. We're already living in a survelliance state (and arguably the early stages of a police state), our government is controlled by corporations and elites, the military-industrial complex is out of control, our monetary system is corrupt, and our economy is in turmoil. Its going to become increasingly more difficult for patriotic Americans to not be labeled extremists (or other vile labels) when actively fighting against these entities and ills through peaceful means.

OWS protestors have been labeled terrorists on several occasions, terms like "enemy combatant" are used more frequently to describe different enemies of the US, and new laws and gov organizations (Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, etc.) are being inacted to circumvent the rights and liberties of Americans. Could there come a point where all of this blends together and many Americans find themselves on the wrong side of the coin? This quote sums it up well:

Martin Niemoller wrote:

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

FTFY

I haven't referenced Germany or Nazis once in any of my threads and only chose this quote to summarize the aforementioned scenario. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you done trolling for today?

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1.

FTFY

I haven't referenced Germany or Nazis once in any of my threads and only chose this particular quote to summarize the aforementioned scenario. Do you have anything to add to the discussion or are you done trolling for today?

My problem is where do you draw the line with the label "extremist"; undoubtedly the label will be gradually altered to include a larger demographic. We're already living in a survelliance state (and arguably the early stages of a police state), our government is controlled by corporations and elites, the military-industrial complex is out of control, our monetary system is corrupt, and our economy is in turmoil. Its going to become increasingly more difficult for patriotic Americans to not be labeled extremists (or other vile labels) when actively fighting against these entities and ills through peaceful means.

If your idea of how to fix all those problems boils down to shooting a government employee or blowing up a government building it's a pretty safe bet that you're an extremist. Personally I extend that out to anyone who belongs to a "militia", lives in a compound, and stockpiles weapons and ammo for when the UN black helicopters or the race war comes.

93_confirmed wrote:

OWS protestors have been labeled terrorists on several occasions, terms like "enemy combatant" are used more frequently to describe different enemies of the US, and new laws and gov organizations (Patriot Act, NDAA, TSA, etc.) are being inacted to circumvent the rights and liberties of Americans. Could there come a point where all of this blends together and many Americans find themselves on the wrong side of the coin?

Could there? Sure. I'm just not sure if we're already on the slippery slope towards that or we're going to wake up and have an Edward R. Murrow moment.

Whether it's a witch hunt or McCarthyism, movements based on fear tend to have a short half-life. We're just a decade in from 9/11 and there's sadly a chunk of Americans who feel like terrorists are going to show up in Anytown, USA and commit the next big attack. I wonder how long support of--or, more accurately, the fear behind--those laws like the PATRIOT Act will last as we disengage from Iraq and Afghanistan and the Taliban and AQ fade from our national memory.

OWS protesters have been called terrorists, but they're a long way from being officially labeled by our government as such (nor do I think it will likely happen since the protests have been largely peaceful and non-violent).

Yonder wrote:

At this point striking the Pope once with a sword is a completely reasonable action.